Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[Hammer]

RE: PML- "As the years pass by without climate change calamity?"

What part about the glaciers in Glacier National Park disappearing NOW dont you understand? What part about the polar ice pack not refreezing in the winter NOW dont you understand? What part of polar bears suddenly showing up on the mainland dont you understand? What part about sea levels rising all over the world NOW dont you understand? What part about species moving north, droughts and floods becoming more pronounced, etc- RIGHT NOW-dont you understand?

And getting back to the original issue of discussion, if you have hunted ducks for any length of time whatsoever, you know that the duck migration is far different now than it was 20-30 years ago...There are all sorts of esoteric explanations from "we dont have the ducks they say we do to they are short stopping the ducks to the CRP/WRP have taken away the food to there are too many hunters" etc, etc, etc., yet you continue to deny the most obvious and very simple reason- the weather is warmer so the birds dont have to migrate as far south and/or once they move south, the weather to the north warms back up so the birds move back north. It used to be that once the ducks were here, they were here. That is no longer true throughout much of the southern end of the MS Flyway.

RE: JJM- First, who is Michael Fumente and where was this article published? Is there a reason why you didnt give the source of this article?

Second, even if this is bonafide legitimate information concerning temperature data, you should keep your eye on the CO2 concentration data more than on the temperature data (as I have said so many times before). C02 concentrations are spiking ever upward and nature is telling us this is not a good thing. As hunters, yall are supposed to be in tune with nature. The problem is that you are not in tune with nature- you are in tune with "fellowship", your egos, your pickup trucks with your window decals and a host of other symptoms of our consumer culture on steroids run amuck.

There is nothign wrong with "fellowship" unless it leads to a "Confederacy of Dunces" as is the case with hunters and most conservation issues. Hunters should be the canaries in the coalmine telling the rest of society that we are seeing things that are not right. Instead, we are poster children for the right wing men of material and interests who are plundering God's Creation all over the world. And for what? Money- THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. IN the US alone, we are losing 5000 ACRES A DAY of wildlife habitat to development (according to the USDA). Yet hunters stand idly by and do nothing.

American hunters either become RELEVANT by becoming conservationists in the true sense of the word- OR- the American public relegates us to a European model of hunting where only the rich and powerful hunt on their estates. I'm doing my part- the ball is in your court to do yours. One thing is for sure, you cant say "I did not know" cause I have made darn sure you have the information.

[JJ McGuire]

I see you have a problem.

[pntailhntr]

YA'LL NEED JOBS!!!

[Hammer]

JJM: Denial is easy....Accepting responsibility for your actions and your effect on the world is hard...Most folks- yourself included- like easy....Others- like me- thrive on hard....It will not be easy for many of you but hunters either swallow some bitter medicine by partnering with the "enviros" or we are out of business- simple as that.

[mudsucker]

....Others- like me- thrive on hard....but hunters either swallow or we are out of business-

Damn brother. I would not have told that!

[Hammer]

Make your jokes Mudsucker and continue to watch your hunting heritage slip into oblivion. When you look in the mirror wondering what happened, there will be nobody there but you.

[mudsucker]

Very profound 'old hard worker!

[JJ McGuire]

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

[Hammer]

First you said the world wasnt getting hotter, now your saying, well I guess it is getting hotter but humans arent the cause...Get yoru story straight and then tell it to the US Supreme Court...The justices spent 2 years reviewing scientific studies and heard the testimony of hundreds of witnesses before ruling that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act BECAUSE it causes global warming.

Of course, you and the other naysayers know more than the Supreme Court, the US Senate, the National Academy of Sciences, 16 US State legislatures and governors, the governments of virtually all industrialized nations, etc so who am I to question your knowledge. In fact, why are you wasting your time debating this with me? You should be in Washington, in New York at UN headquarters and elsewhere straightening this hoax out.

Next thing I know, You will probably tell me that the hole in the ozone was a hoax too.

[rjohnson]

Next thing I know, You will probably tell me that the hole in the ozone was a hoax too.

It was.

[mudsucker]

Next thing I know, You will probably tell me that the hole in the ozone was a hoax too.

It was.

There's ahole in that there ozone stuff??

[pntailhntr]

Well shiz I didn't think my shotgun would hit that far, Darn sure never thought I could hit the ozone!!!! Sorry guys, I put a hole in the Ozone!!!

[Hammer]

Thanks for taking the bait you idiot...I should see how many more of you doffusses will take it but I cant resist the chance to slam your head back in the sand now rather than later...Go to this link to see what NASA says about the Ozone Hole:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

It will be interesting to see your machinations - and those of your like minded, anti science, dofuss naysayer allies as they rally to your defense with similar idiotic statements. I'm sure you will tell me its an enviro conspiracy and that NASA is part of it, etc, etc, etc cause I have heard all that similar garbage regarding GW.

Fact is you guys dont believe the science because you dont want to believe the science. Hence, everything you have ever said about waterfowl management is also completely baseless- it is your unqualified opinion and nothing more.

Let me again say: SCOREBOARD (with an added GFY for good measure)

[pntailhntr]

Hammer, you got WAY TOOOOOO much time on your hands man. We all know about the HOLE in the OZONE so keep your britches on!!!!

This whole thing has gotten down right funny

[pntailhntr]

This sounds to me like there is nothing more we can do to stop the Ozone hole.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html

It says the Cholrine is so stable it will never die, once it kills ozone it basically serperates itself then goes on to another ozone and it is a continous cycle every spring and there is nothing that can be done about it!

SO, WHY ARE YA"LL DEBATING OVER IT?????